Legal Opinion
Wildermann v. Wachtell
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 28, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosenman, J.
The defendant Wachtell, a New York attorney, was consulted by the plaintiff on February 12, 1921, with reference to collecting an unliquidated claim against the executors of a Pennsylvania estate.
The defendant realized the necessity of retaining a Pennsylvania lawyer to conduct the suit itself and all procedural matters and so informed the plaintiff. He recommended one Gumbes for this purpose. No claim is made and no proof is presented that the defendant was negligent in selecting Gumbes for this purpose.
*624The plaintiff assented to the employment of Gumbes. The defendant arranged for Gumbes to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Degen v. SteinbrinkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Degen v. . SteinbrinkNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tormo v. YormarkDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1975
- Floro v. LawtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Wildermann v. WachtellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Reed v. Finkelstein, Levine, Gittlesohn & TetenbaumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Tasty One, LLC v. Earth Smarte Water, LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2023